2008 Woodie Awards
Is the Record Industry Justified in Suing Music Downloaders?
Counter Point: Shot in the Dark
James Shafstall
Issue date: 9/30/03 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
I am continually astounded by the number of people I meet that defend
downloading copyrighted music as if they have some sort of entitlement to the products of artists. Many people would be horrified if I proposed to them that they go into a music store and steal a compact disc of music, but they would have a clear conscience about illegally downloading that same music off of the internet. My question is how did so many people come to believe that they had a moral right to take music for free? What is unique about the product music that allows people to believe that it, amongst all of the other products out there, can be stolen without guilt or shame?
If ever you get something for nothing, you will be wise to regard it with the highest suspicion. Most of us have hopefully learned the lesson that one rarely gets something for nothing. If you have not learned this I pity you for all of the marketing ploys, get rich quick schemes, free money scams, and other pipe dreams you are doubtlessly going to fall for before you learn that if you want something of value, you have to pay for it. And in the event that you truly do get something for nothing, then remember, if you are not paying for it, someone else is. If you shoot someone in the dark, they still die. Turn your lights on so you can see whose life you are taking.
Should the music industry be trying to regulate the illegal distribution of copyrighted material? I repeatedly hear people talk with indignation about the rich music industry bullying money from poor, innocent individuals, and how they are obtaining information illegally by invading peoples' private computers, and therefore should not be allowed to sue. Many people have their own rationalizations for downloading music, for example, they say compact discs are overpriced, or that they shouldn't have to pay for all of the other songs on a CD just to get the one or two they want, or that the actual musicians aren't getting a fair percentage of the profits.
What if music is overpriced? What if they are illegally getting the information they need for these lawsuits? What if the music industry is a group of evil, rich executives that will do anything to bleed another dollar out of the public? None of this changes the fact that when you download copyrighted music without proper permissions, when you take something for free that you were supposed to pay for, you are a thief, and somewhere down the line there is an innocent victim. How many people, when they talk about the evil music industry, when they talk about the musicians who aren't getting their fair money from record sales, really care about rich executives or those poor musicians? These people are only pulling the wool over their own eyes, rationalizing so they can steal without the burden of guilt. If you download copyrighted music without permission, rich or poor, young or old, you are stealing, and should be held liable.
downloading copyrighted music as if they have some sort of entitlement to the products of artists. Many people would be horrified if I proposed to them that they go into a music store and steal a compact disc of music, but they would have a clear conscience about illegally downloading that same music off of the internet. My question is how did so many people come to believe that they had a moral right to take music for free? What is unique about the product music that allows people to believe that it, amongst all of the other products out there, can be stolen without guilt or shame?
If ever you get something for nothing, you will be wise to regard it with the highest suspicion. Most of us have hopefully learned the lesson that one rarely gets something for nothing. If you have not learned this I pity you for all of the marketing ploys, get rich quick schemes, free money scams, and other pipe dreams you are doubtlessly going to fall for before you learn that if you want something of value, you have to pay for it. And in the event that you truly do get something for nothing, then remember, if you are not paying for it, someone else is. If you shoot someone in the dark, they still die. Turn your lights on so you can see whose life you are taking.
Should the music industry be trying to regulate the illegal distribution of copyrighted material? I repeatedly hear people talk with indignation about the rich music industry bullying money from poor, innocent individuals, and how they are obtaining information illegally by invading peoples' private computers, and therefore should not be allowed to sue. Many people have their own rationalizations for downloading music, for example, they say compact discs are overpriced, or that they shouldn't have to pay for all of the other songs on a CD just to get the one or two they want, or that the actual musicians aren't getting a fair percentage of the profits.
What if music is overpriced? What if they are illegally getting the information they need for these lawsuits? What if the music industry is a group of evil, rich executives that will do anything to bleed another dollar out of the public? None of this changes the fact that when you download copyrighted music without proper permissions, when you take something for free that you were supposed to pay for, you are a thief, and somewhere down the line there is an innocent victim. How many people, when they talk about the evil music industry, when they talk about the musicians who aren't getting their fair money from record sales, really care about rich executives or those poor musicians? These people are only pulling the wool over their own eyes, rationalizing so they can steal without the burden of guilt. If you download copyrighted music without permission, rich or poor, young or old, you are stealing, and should be held liable.